4 ms·

You're self-medicating with one of the most dangerous drugs in the world

4 points by techdog 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
NIL8 12y ago
I couldn't even read the first sentence without being forced to sign up. Bad form.
JSeymourATL 12y ago
> That way, the libertarians (and others) who want personal choice can choose to pay 10 or 20 cents extra for "real Coke" if their delicate taste buds can't abide Coke Zero. Libertarians have been arguing for the end of Sugar Industry subsidies ($2 billion annually) for years. See Cato Institute > http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-congress-should-repeal-sugar-subsidy http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-congress-sho... Neither Democrats or GOP leadership have shown any political will to take on Big Sugar. So why does Kas Thomas make such an inept, asinine, gratuitous swipe at Libertarians?
- jgroszko 12y ago
  Is Coke Zero any better? I thought there was some research around how the artificial sweeteners trigger the same metabolic response without providing the actual calories, causing even more appetite...
yellowapple 12y ago
> and sugar denialists will claim that the correlation between sugar consumption and obesity doesn't prove causation; and other such moronic crap. I fail to understand how that qualifies as "moronic crap" when this article - like the hundreds of "OMG SUGAR IS BAD!!!!!!!!11111one" tirades before it - yet again fails to provide that there is indeed causation. There are a lot of factors when it comes to the cause of obesity and the resulting medical concerns; chalking it all up as "oh, it's just sugar, we should just eat less of it and all our problems will disappear" is irresponsible and misguided, and demonstrates a scarcity of understanding of a topic this article's author is masquerading as an expert of. Yes, fat people eat a lot of sugar. Yes, fat people are at higher risk of illnesses like cancer and heart disease and diabetes. That does not in and of itself prove that sugar consumption causes these things. Maybe fat people just happen to like sugar (which - speaking as a fat person - would not be a particularly-egregious stretch)? It also falls into the same pattern as its predecessors when it comes to lumping table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup together as if the notion of cane sugar is some myth and that all sugar comes from corn. > Have you joined the mailing list? What are you waiting for? I'm waiting for you to write an article that's actually worthwhile instead of spewing the same pretentious holier-than-thou bullshit that every other anti-sugar fanatic likes to toss at every last passerby. You immediately barfing up a "SIGN UP TO MY MAILING LIST!!!!!!!1111one" popup and blocking the article with it certainly does not help convince me that I should subscribe to it.

4 points by techdog 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

NIL8 12y ago

I couldn't even read the first sentence without being forced to sign up. Bad form.

JSeymourATL 12y ago

> That way, the libertarians (and others) who want personal choice can choose to pay 10 or 20 cents extra for "real Coke" if their delicate taste buds can't abide Coke Zero. Libertarians have been arguing for the end of Sugar Industry subsidies ($2 billion annually) for years. See Cato Institute > http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-congress-should-repeal-sugar-subsidy http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-congress-sho... Neither Democrats or GOP leadership have shown any political will to take on Big Sugar. So why does Kas Thomas make such an inept, asinine, gratuitous swipe at Libertarians?

jgroszko 12y ago
Is Coke Zero any better? I thought there was some research around how the artificial sweeteners trigger the same metabolic response without providing the actual calories, causing even more appetite...

yellowapple 12y ago

> and sugar denialists will claim that the correlation between sugar consumption and obesity doesn't prove causation; and other such moronic crap. I fail to understand how that qualifies as "moronic crap" when this article - like the hundreds of "OMG SUGAR IS BAD!!!!!!!!11111one" tirades before it - yet again fails to provide that there is indeed causation. There are a lot of factors when it comes to the cause of obesity and the resulting medical concerns; chalking it all up as "oh, it's just sugar, we should just eat less of it and all our problems will disappear" is irresponsible and misguided, and demonstrates a scarcity of understanding of a topic this article's author is masquerading as an expert of. Yes, fat people eat a lot of sugar. Yes, fat people are at higher risk of illnesses like cancer and heart disease and diabetes. That does not in and of itself prove that sugar consumption causes these things. Maybe fat people just happen to like sugar (which - speaking as a fat person - would not be a particularly-egregious stretch)? It also falls into the same pattern as its predecessors when it comes to lumping table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup together as if the notion of cane sugar is some myth and that all sugar comes from corn. > Have you joined the mailing list? What are you waiting for? I'm waiting for you to write an article that's actually worthwhile instead of spewing the same pretentious holier-than-thou bullshit that every other anti-sugar fanatic likes to toss at every last passerby. You immediately barfing up a "SIGN UP TO MY MAILING LIST!!!!!!!1111one" popup and blocking the article with it certainly does not help convince me that I should subscribe to it.